The Declaration of Independence—A Christian Document?

Is America a Christian nation? Some Christians eagerly point to the word “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence (1776) as evidence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Who is this “Creator”? Is it Yahweh, the Christian god? Is it a placeholder into which you can imagine any god so that Muslims can imagine Allah or Hindus can imagine Brahma?

No—the opening sentence clarifies: it’s not Yahweh but “Nature’s God.” At the time, this phrase was understood as the deist god of Enlightenment philosophers like Spinoza and Voltaire. Deism was popular in Revolutionary America, and Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and other founding fathers were either deists or inspired by the movement. Deism imagines a hands-off god, a creator who, once the clock is built and wound up, leaves it to tick by itself.

The role of this “Creator” is clarified in the Declaration:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In other words, the Creator has no role at all in government. We’ve turned our back on the divine right of kings, where the king was God’s representative who served at God’s pleasure. God isn’t the foundation on which authority rests. No—it’s the consent of the governed. The buck stops here, which is very empowering.

Remember that the purpose of the Declaration was to inform Britain that the colonies wanted to become independent. When government becomes abusive, the recourse isn’t to appeal to God:

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Again, we see that the government rules at the pleasure of the people, not God.

While the Declaration of Independence doesn’t give Christians what they may imagine it does—an acknowledgement of the existence of the Christian god and his sovereignty over this country—this exercise is largely irrelevant. The Declaration isn’t the supreme law of the United States. That is the Constitution, and it’s secular. Watch out for Christian revisionist historians bringing up the Declaration. That’s the white flag of surrender because they know that they have nothing where it really counts—the Constitution.

I will restate what I told you before: “We can stipulate that the Constitution is not the document that shows the intent of the Founding Fathers to use Chrsitian principles. Recently, I read a piece, however that shows that the Declaration is the WHY, the Constitution is the HOW. Since the Founders didn’t intend to institute a theocracy, it is completely reasonable that they didn’t put much about God in the HOW to RUN THE COUNTRY document, the Constitution.”

No one I know has stated that the Constitution set up a government nor that the Declaration intended to institute one that was explicitly Christian in nature. Not sure why you are beating this particular drum. The point most Christians make is that the majority of the signers and authors of both documents were not deists, but Christian in their character, training, thinking and philosophy.

We can stipulate that neither document sets out to form any sort of theocracy nor to set up Christianity as the religion of the land. But the underlying principles are Christian in character, largely derived from Christian principles of individual liberty and responsibility to both their fellow man and to their creator, the one who endowed them with inalienable rights. To find out what the writers and signers were thinking, we go to their personal papers and writings, such as the Federalist Papers. That is where we get the story behind the story. That ought to be the subject of a future blog post.

John Adams, writing of the Constitution, said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” See other quotes of the signers of these documents at http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

No one I know has stated that the Constitution set up a government nor that the Declaration intended to institute one that was explicitly Christian in nature. Not sure why you are beating this particular drum.

?? Can you say, “David Barton”?

From his wallbuilders site: “we develop materials to educate the public concerning the periods in our country’s history when its laws and policies were firmly rooted in Biblical principles.” These guys give fodder for those who want to erode the division between church and state. Does mixing these two sound like a good idea to you? It’s not like your pastor will be the government’s spiritual advisor in a future America when the wall is rubble, as many Christians seem to want.

The question should be: why aren’t you beating this drum?

The point most Christians make is that the majority of the signers and authors of both documents were not deists, but Christian in their character, training, thinking and philosophy.

True–they were Christian. They were also carnivores, the majority drank beer, and many owned slaves. All these curious traits are meaningless to the direction they set the country in.

That is where we get the story behind the story. That ought to be the subject of a future blog post.

The majority of the founding fathers were Christian. What else needs to be said? The interesting point IMO is that these largely Christian men with a background steeped in a strong connection between church and state created a secular country. Wow–now that’s a story worth telling.

Rick Townsend

Reference Bob’s Comment, “?? Can you say, “David Barton”?” Can you say, “ad hominem attack?” The referenced site simply has consolidated quotes. Refute the data, not the source. You know better!

Erode the division between church and state? And what is that division? The Constitutional one is that government shall ESTABLISH no church. It is NOT that people of faith should not work to influence public policy. Your attempt to redefine the separation of church and state is typical of liberal politics. You are supposed to be above that fray, providing “clear thinking on Christianity.” You should know the difference between establishing a state church and developing laws which are based in Judeo-Christian morality.

Reference Bob’s Comment, “True–they were Christian. They were also carnivores, the majority drank beer, and many owned slaves. All these curious traits are meaningless to the direction they set the country in.” Right. That is why I didn’t do any research about whether any of them were vegetarians. Nice straw man argument. As for slavery, Christians had a major influence in putting an end to that injustice. Atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao reinstituted it on a society wide basis. Want to compare 20th century track records on whether Christians or atheists were better for the masses? We can go there, but you’ll lose.

Reference Bob’s comment: “The interesting point IMO is that these largely Christian men with a background steeped in a strong connection between church and state created a secular country. Wow–now that’s a story worth telling.” Sure it is, but you got the flavor wrong. Their goal was not to create a specifically secular country. It was to provide a country where liberty and responsibility were mixed appropriately, and where no religion was favored but ALL people of ALL religions had freedom of worship. Secular in government, Christian in character and rule of law, with absolute freedom to worship as individuals chose. That is the real story. Why recast it in your image after the fact?

You don’t like my sources—fine. Show me one where all of the 1776-1789-ish atheists espouse their particular views on why the Constitution should be based on “freethinker” principles of freedom, individual liberty, responsibility and survival of the fittest. Oh, wait, that doesn’t seem right, does it? That last part sounds strangely like “the strongest rule,” and not like individual freedom and dignity we see in the founding documents. Can you say, “gangsters and protection money?”

Bob Seidensticker

Can you say, “ad hominem attack?”

I can indeed, but what does this logical fallacy have to do with my point? You couldn’t understand why this issue bothered me and I pointed to David Barton and his ilk to help explain it. Where’s the problem?

The Constitutional one is that government shall ESTABLISH no church. It is NOT that people of faith should not work to influence public policy. Your attempt to redefine the separation of church and state is typical of liberal politics.

I agree with your point. So what am I doing that is typical of liberal politics? Agreeing with people?

developing laws which are based in Judeo-Christian morality

Is that where they come from? I see some similarity, though I also see dramatic differences as well. Is “Judeo-Christian morality” the OT theocracy? Is it the Ten Commandments? Jesus was an observant Jew, and even saying, “It’s what Jesus said” still highlights a big gulf between that and our Constitution.

The confusion IMO is thinking that morality comes from Christianity. Rather, I think that Christianity comes from morality. We didn’t need Jesus to inform us of the Golden Rule, for example. That he argued for some good moral principles is great, but let’s confuse that with where they came from.

Nice straw man argument.

Explain. This is another charge that I don’t see as relevant.

As for slavery, Christians had a major influence in putting an end to that injustice.

True but irrelevant. You did follow my point, right? Maybe if you go back to my post you’ll see the context.

Atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao reinstituted it on a society wide basis. Want to compare 20th century track records on whether Christians or atheists were better for the masses? We can go there, but you’ll lose.

I doubt it.

Let’s get our cause and effect right. The atheism was not the point. They were SOBs because they were dictators, not because they were atheists. The atheism was a consequence of their being dictators; the atheism wasn’t a cause. The church was an obstacle, so they removed it, hence the atheism.

Secular in government, Christian in character and rule of law, with absolute freedom to worship as individuals chose. That is the real story. Why recast it in your image after the fact?

Yet another charge for which I see no evidence. What did I recast? I’m saying that the Constitution is secular and you’re agreeing. Surely you’re not saying that this fundamental trait, the secular nature of the Constitution, comes from Judeo-Christian principles.

I have no idea where you’re going with your last paragraph, but I’ll just note that survival of the fittest is not the same thing as “the strongest rule.”

Bob Seidensticker

Not sure why you’re beating this particular drum

I came across an article about a public school board that has a Bible evangelist in to proselytize to public school children.

The school board responds with this: “We were established to be a godly nation, a Christian nation.”

That’s why I’m beating this particular drum–because this kind of revisionist history has consequences.

Rick Townsend

And I am aware that not just ONE school system, but nearly ALL of them teach a world view that is antithetical to the one I believe to be true. Maybe you should be concerned about a particular world view (i.e., there is no god) being pushed on all of those who believe. Maybe we should stick to teaching observable facts and the scientific method, and teach both sides of controversial theories.

That would leave more time for teaching real math and science and we’d spend less time indoctrinating the kids on only one side of the story. Are you afraid that when faced with the problems posed by a godless worldview, kids might say, “That’s just stupid! Everything has to have a cause, and complexity looks like it ought to have a designer.” (I know this is a blog post about the Declaration of Independence, but you brought up the school indoctrination issue…)

Bob Seidensticker

Maybe you should be concerned about a particular world view (i.e., there is no god) being pushed on all of those who believe.

Are children being taught that there is no god? Or are they being taught that naturalistic explanations may be sufficient to explain everything? If the latter, I see no problem.

As Steve Weinberg said, “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but it does make it possible to not believe in God.”

teach both sides of controversial theories.

Give me an example where this is done in science class today. We don’t teach astrology next to astronomy. We don’t teach alchemy next to chemistry. Where there’s a scientific consensus, that’s what we teach and nothing more.

But you think I’m overlooking something?

That would leave more time for teaching real math and science and we’d spend less time indoctrinating the kids on only one side of the story.

R-i-i-i-i-ight. Teaching two theories instead of one would free up time to teach more stuff.

Are you afraid that when faced with the problems posed by a godless worldview, kids might say, “That’s just stupid! Everything has to have a cause, and complexity looks like it ought to have a designer.”

No, I’m afraid of turning science class into something that it never has been.

Retro

Rick T wrote: Maybe you should be concerned about a particular world view (i.e., there is no god) being pushed on all of those who believe.

Who is teaching that there is no god? Truth is, god isn’t (or shouldn’t be) brought up at all in public schools. Not bringing up god is not the same as teaching there is no god.

Maybe we should stick to teaching observable facts and the scientific method, and teach both sides of controversial theories.

This brings up the question: In your opinion, what makes a theory controversial?

If you want to stick to teaching observable facts and the scientific method, then where does that leave teachings about supernatural things like ghosts and gods?

That would leave more time for teaching real math and science and we’d spend less time indoctrinating the kids on only one side of the story.

And again, what does real math and science say about the existence of gods? Belief in gods has nothing to do with real math and science, so why would gods ever come up in a math or science class?

Not teaching about gods would indeed leave more time for teaching real math and science.

(I know this is a blog post about the Declaration of Independence, but you brought up the school indoctrination issue…)

Again, why do you consider NOT teaching religious claims to be indoctrination?

If you want your kids to learn about Intelligent Design, God, Jesus, or whatever… then do so on your own time. I’d like to remind you that no one is stopping you from teaching your children this in your churches.

Rick Townsend

Reference: “Where’s the problem?” You pointed to David Barton instead of the data. That is ad hominem attack. Still haven’t refuted the data he provided, which is simply quotes making my point. Refute the quotes, not the source.

Reference the Straw Man Argument: Again, instead of addressing my point about them being Christians, and setting up a Constitution with Judeo-Christian principles, you diverted to the fact they had other characteristics I didn’t address. You don’t think diverting to my lack of addressing their being carnivore, beer-drinking slave holders and beating me up for that while you admitted they were Christians constitutes a straw man? You set up a case for something I didn’t make and said it would have been as relevant as the point I DID make, which you agreed to but didn’t address, namely they were predominantly Christians. That is a straw man. Why not address it instead of making me define it for you? This shows argumentative spirit but not sincerity.

Reference “They were SOBs because they were dictators, not because they were atheists. The atheism was a consequence of their being dictators; the atheism wasn’t a cause.” Sigh. Really? So they became atheists AFTER they were SOB dictators? That is what you imply by saying their atheism was a consequence of being dictators. So they were really choir boys before becoming ruthless dictators? Or were they atheists AT THE TIME they rose to power? Your cause and effect timing is curious.

My last paragraph speaks for itself. Address it and show me the proof of atheist or purely secular influences among the founders being the driving force behind the documents whose Judeo-Christian foundations you are trying to undercut.

Bob Seidensticker

You pointed to David Barton instead of the data. That is ad hominem attack.

I think you need to look up the definition of ad hominem fallacy. If I’d said, “C’mon! Everyone knows that David Barton has a Nazi flag tacked up on his office wall, and he eats babies. A monster like that can offer no valid history.” then that would’ve been such a fallacy. I did no such thing.

Again, instead of addressing my point about them being Christians, and setting up a Constitution with Judeo-Christian principles, you diverted to the fact they had other characteristics I didn’t address.

I started my comment with “True–they were Christian,” so I squarely acknowledged and agreed to your point. Then I showed how that point was irrelevant. That’s not changing the subject but showing that your point doesn’t have any weight. Argue that it was in fact relevant if you want, but there was no fallacy here.

We’re spending a lot of time arguing over the correct definition of fallacies. Either we have to share a common definition for these or you need to avoid asides like this.

This shows argumentative spirit but not sincerity.

It’s not me who’s taking us off into tangents with charges of one kind or another!

Or were they atheists AT THE TIME they rose to power?

In the first place, Hitler wasn’t an atheist. Stalin was trained as a priest, so I’m not sure when he became an atheist. Maybe Stalin and Mao were atheists when they rose to power, but the question is cause and effect. You’re saying that the atheism caused bad results. Seems clear to me that the desire for power drove the suppression of the church. That connection seems clear–obviously, a dictator wants to get rid of a rival power source. But you’re saying that the atheism was the driving factor to the rise to power? I’ve seen nothing on this.

Address it and show me the proof of atheist or purely secular influences among the founders being the driving force behind the documents whose Judeo-Christian foundations you are trying to undercut.

The Constitution is secular. We agree. I’m not sure where else you’re going here.

If you’re saying that the secular nature of the Constitution is clearly based on Judeo-Christian principles, praise the Lord. Now show me.

Rick Townsend

I didn’t say you indicated anything about a Nazi flag with David Barton. Your excesses are showing.

I’m comfortable with my responses to your argument, and think I said what I need to say. The rabbit is way too far down this particular trail. I guess I don’t feel a need to respond to each or your twists and turns above. I’ll let others chime in… Enjoy.

Bob Seidensticker

I didn’t say you indicated anything about a Nazi flag with David Barton. Your excesses are showing.

(I guess the charges of ad hominem attack and straw man have been dropped? Am I released from jail now?)

Retro

RIck T wrote: But the underlying principles are Christian in character, largely derived from Christian principles of individual liberty and responsibility to both their fellow man and to their creator, the one who endowed them with inalienable rights.

Maybe I missed the post where the Bible quotes for these claims were given.

What are the Bible verses for individual liberty and inalienable rights? WHERE?

Retro

Where are the Bible verses that set up the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Doesn’t the Bible urge believers to not think of this life, but the one to come? Does the Bible anywhere condemn slavery?

Doesn’t the Bible teach the exact opposite of freedom of religion? Where does the Bible discuss the right to freedom of speech or the press? Does the Bible teach that we should be free to write, speak, and debate our opinions?

Where does the Bible’s pursuit of happiness match the Constitutional definition of the pursuit of happiness?

Doesn’t the Bible teach the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Aren’t believers called to give their life to Christ? Doesn’t the Bible teach that believers should give up their own wills, and do God’s? Doesn’t the Bible teach that we are to become slaves of Christ? Doesn’t the Bible honor those that gave up their lives for Jesus?

So I ask all of you again, Doesn’t the Bible teach the exact opposite of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages

Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).

Collagen and soft tissue were detected in dinosaur bones which is “exceptional preservation” and should not be there after so long a time period as 65 M years.39

Harvard scientists have confirmed that proteins from the collagen detected in the famous T-Rex (2005) was definitely collagen as determined by sequencing the fraction. Thus there is no reason to believe that what our lab has extracted is NOT collagen.40

Collagen, inside Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones was tested successfully for C-14. Collagen from a second Triceratops femur bone from Montana likewise contained collagen and C-14 in 2008. 41

Bio-apatite was also successfully tested for AMS C-14 after careful pretreatment w/HAc (acetic acid) to remove possible old and young CaCO3 contamination.

Bone collagen and bone bioapatite and/or total bone organics gave concordant C-14 dates after careful extraction and purification of those fractions as noted in Table 1.

W. Libby, who received the Nobel Prize for his C-14 research showed there is no possible way that bone collagen can be contaminated.42

T. Stafford’s data has shown that weak acid insoluble collagen and total Carbon, HAc and alkali treated Domebo Mammoth bone agreed within about 5% of the most expensive purification treatment methods for obtaining the oldest RC ages. 43

Collagen content for the Triceratops femur was same as that for Kennewick man’s first metatarsal, namely 0.3% as shown by F. P. McManamon. 44 The former gave an RC age of 30,890 ± 200, the latter 8,410 ± 40 years BP. Collagen was extracted from the dinosaur femur and purified by the widely used “Modified Longin method” (weak acid insoluble collagen method).

Crushed bone containing bio-apatite was treated with mild HAc (acetic acid) to remove surficial carbonates that could give false younger or older ages before the final dilute HCl treatment to evolve CO2 for testing. Bio-apatite is calcium carbonate that replaces bone calcium phosphate during the life of the dinosaur or other animal.

In essence RC dating methods could give major false old RC ages rather than false young RC ages because labs have eliminated sources of major young contamination. Also, we really don’t know the actual C-14 concentration during the period when dinosaurs and some magafauna lived together. In other words the ratio of formation of cosmogenic C-14 is not known in the past. But, major young contamination is most unlikely. Why? RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids with alkaline pre-treatments or acetic acid pre-treatments under vacuum for young or old surficial calcium carbonates. So, young contamination is most unlikely for dinosaur and megafauna bones.

Of course the most important point or results of this research is that there are measurable amounts of C-14 in samples supposedly free of C14. Calculated RC dates are not absolute dates but they do correspond to the official C14 procedures as noted above. It can then be argued that it is far more probable that the atmosphere could have been much more depleted of C-14 content 1000′s of years ago compared to today’s content. Why? Because the protective quality of a much stronger magnetic field strength 1000′s of years ago could have caused a much lower rate of C-14 formation compared to the current rate. In other words a half life of 1400 years implies a stronger magnetic field 1000′s of years ago which would have inhibited the formation of C-14 in the upper atmosphere; this could make the dinosaurs and many megafauna seem much older than reality.45 The real ages for dinosaurs and some magafauna thus could be 1000′s of years younger than the concordant RC years we obtained for dinosaur bone collagen and bio-apatite. We cite three references as possible indicators of this probability.

Radiocarbon research has shown that when an environmental factor is significantly depleted of C-14, living plant life gave old ages of 4000 to 25,000 RC years. Also, the variation in RC ages in fossil bones and plant life, including dinosaurs and megafauna, found in essentially the same strata can be explained by differing but very strong magnetic field strength; therefore the actual RC age would depend on each dinosaur’s or megafauna’s source of food and water. This effect involves strong magnetic field C-14 depleted plant life or even primordial carbon being ingested by plants through water or gas and eaten by animals. Animals that eat such plants would have less C-14 content thus causing an apparent older than expected RC age. A few examples include a living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts, 10,000 RC years BP as reported by B. Huber;46 plants growing in Montezuma well water 17,300 to 24,750 RC years BP as reported by J. G. Ogden III;47 and, a lab experiment by A. Long in which a 4000 RC year date for plant life resulted when subjected to gas from an ancient carbon dioxide source.48

Bob Seidensticker

So how old do you think dinosaurs are? Are you a young earth creationist?

In your model of reality, are all dinosaurs within the testable range of C-14 dating? In that case, every dinosaur fossil should be datable this way. Do you think this is the case?

I don’t see why this is much of a puzzle. C-14 has reportedly been detected in diamonds as well (I don’t know how reliable these reports are). But C-14 in either diamonds or fossils is conceivable if they were around radioactive minerals.

Are you arguing that biologists or paleontologists would not have a rebuttal to this? That they’d be convinced that this indeed convincingly argues against evolution?

And if not, why show it to me? Why should it convince me if it doesn’t convince the people who actually know what’s going on in this field?

At http://www.sciencevsevolution.org, where I assume you got your information, I see 7 “scientific experts” listed. Since the title of this blog is “The scientific impossibility of evolution,” I need to know: how many of these experts have doctorates in biology? That is: how many are qualified to offer critiques that should be taken seriously within the scientific community?

Rick Townsend

Reference Bob S: “Who is teaching that there is no god? Truth is, god isn’t (or shouldn’t be) brought up at all in public schools. Not bringing up god is not the same as teaching there is no god.” Teaching evolutionary theory without teaching its weaknesses is teaching there is no God. That is indoctrination. Why did you bother to ask—you know this to be true.

Reference Bob S: “This brings up the question: In your opinion, what makes a theory controversial?” Your side disallowing it. Weaknesses of evolution must be controversial, though for the life of me I can’t figure out why. Or the idea that complex things have intelligent causes. Controversial to me? Nah. Obvious.

Reference Bob S: “If you want to stick to teaching observable facts and the scientific method, then where does that leave teachings about supernatural things like ghosts and gods?” and “”And again, what does real math and science say about the existence of gods? Belief in gods has nothing to do with real math and science, so why would gods ever come up in a math or science class?” Leave it out. Just teach the logical stuff and let students draw their own conclusion about any supernatural possibilities. Just don’t disallow an intelligent cause. They can fill in the gaps if there are any.

Reference Bob S: “Again, why do you consider NOT teaching religious claims to be indoctrination?” I don’t—I consider actively teaching naturalism and evolution as the only possibility to be indoctrination. Unless you want to teach strengths and weaknesses of the theories. That’d be enough!

Reference Bob S. “If you want your kids to learn about Intelligent Design, God, Jesus, or whatever… then do so on your own time. I’d like to remind you that no one is stopping you from teaching your children this in your churches.” Or you could teach your ridiculous ideas on Sunday mornings. They are free time for you anyway. Leave them out of school.

Bob Seidensticker

I think you confused Retro’s comments with mine. I’ll let him do a more substantial critique.

Teaching evolutionary theory without teaching its weaknesses is teaching there is no God.

I have an idea. Why don’t we let the nice science teacher get back to teaching the scientific consensus. That, after all, is what science class is supposed to be.

I don’t—I consider actively teaching naturalism and evolution as the only possibility to be indoctrination.

What science classroom teaches that?? Science is always provisional. If that isn’t made clear in science class, then I’m as annoyed as you.

Retro

Teaching evolutionary theory without teaching its weaknesses is teaching there is no God.

No it isn’t. Many theists have no problem with accepting Evolution.

Leave it out. Just teach the logical stuff and let students draw their own conclusion about any supernatural possibilities. Just don’t disallow an intelligent cause. They can fill in the gaps if there are any.

And isn’t that EXACTLY what’s currently being done in public schools right now?

Or you could teach your ridiculous ideas on Sunday mornings. They are free time for you anyway. Leave them out of school.

What ridiculous ideas? What EXACTLY do you think kids are being taught in science classes?

My Books

“Cross Examined is a great read on two fronts. You won’t find a better book on Christian apologetics and the rebuttals ... and the story is compelling, with a startling climax. Highly recommended.” — Paul Gabel, author of Inventing JesusA Modern Christmas Carol “Consistently ingenious and beautifully written ... thought-provoking!” — Dr. Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek